User talk:Michael Bednarek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Michael,

Why "material unsuited" ? David and Larry Sontag are twins. Between 1987 and 1998, they were professionals of catch wrestling (like Dave Power and Larry Power in "The Power Twins") then they perform in dozen films (Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve or Jack and Jill) with names David and Larry Sontag...

I am an old contributor on French Wikipedia (since 2006) but I don't speak English very well so I don't know rules on English Wikipedia.

GabrieL (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should assist readers to find Wikipedia articles; see the first sentence at MOS:DAB and further links there. The material you added at Sontag provides no navigation, and is thus unsuitable until articles for David & Larry Sontag exist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Michael: This is the kind of biting that drives so many well-intentioned editors away from Wikipedia.—Finell 08:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
OK. So I have created articles. In French Wikipedia, the red links are welcome if articles can be created beacause admissible. Red links are even desired to encourage people to create the articles. GabrieL (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Gabriel, that is also true here in English Wikipedia. However, we use red links in articles (see the first paragraph in Wikipedia:Red link), but not in disambiguation pages, which are intended to help readers choose among several existing Wikipedia articles. Thank you for contributing to English Wikipedia. I hope you will continue to contribute here.—Finell 08:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nel cor più non mi sento[edit]

Hello Micahel, I am planning a major revision to this article. I noticed that you frequently revise or undo revisions to the article. Would you like to see what I have prepared before I post the changes? I am NOT a regular Wikipedia editor, so I'm not confident about how the "talk" pages work. In breif, the article requires major revision because the song is not an aria from Paisiello's opera... it is a duet. The information given in the music section is accurate only for Parissoti's arrangement as found in "Arie Antiche". I have referrences (mostly primary sources, but also a secondary source). LadyIslay May 18, 2015, 2:14 AM, Pacific.

I had a look at User:LadyIslay/sandbox, where you present many more details and context. On the other hand, your text lacks wikification, particularly wikilinks. Further, the formatting needs some attention. I think it would be a mistake to replace the article's current text with your version. Instead. you should attempt to work your details into the article. A good place to prepare such work is the article's talk page, Talk:Nel cor più non mi sento, where other interested readers and editors can get involved, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Michael: And that's another example.—Finell

I haven't even started adding formatting yet; I was just starting to get the text together. When I it more "ready to go", I'll post it on the article's talk page. Thanks for the suggestion. LadyIslay May 18, 2015, 3:30 PM, Pacific.

Le Postillon de Longjumeau[edit]

Hello Michael. I'm sorry to tell you but I find your reverts stupid. I won't fight but writing a french title uncorrectly just because someone wrote it uncorrectly in the en:wp looks stupid to me. The correct french title is [1] as you can check. How someone writing in a foreign language about a work written in another language doesn't feel that respecting the language is the first thing to do? That's a mystery to me. I could understand if it was a translation but here, it's the pure french title that you refuse to follow. Why don't you correct also the "L" from Longjumeau that is probably an offense to your eyes? BIRDIE ® 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The spelling of foreign-language operas in the English Wikipedia has been discussed at length among editors. The decision to use sentence case is documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines#Operas: capitalization and diacritics and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) for the reasons given there. Related discussions can be found in the archives of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (operas). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Michael, I see that you devote a lot of time to Wikipedia and make many valuable contributions, especially in upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also tend to do a lot of copy editing and conforming articles to WP:MOS. However, you could do even more good for Wikipedia by continuing to do what you do with more tact toward other editors. I base this recommendation on reading the most recent archives of your Talk page. Standards are important, but encouraging broader public participation in creating and editing Wikipedia is even more important to the project in the long run (I'm not talking about deliberate vandals). Where possible, consider trying to salvage imperfect edits rather than reverting them—especially with well-intentioned, but inexperienced, Wikipedians. Also, consider using a more friendly, welcoming tone in your communications with other editors and even in your edit summaries, especially with less experienced editors. There will always be a corps of editors who like to copy edit and to conform articles to the MOS. However, recruiting and retaining new editors, and broadening the diversity of editors, are two of the most serious problems that confront the Wikipedia project.—Finell 09:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Certainly, my addendum is unsourced, but how to "source" a vernacular you grew up in?
Is it unlikely? You must call me a liar to deny the certainty of the existence of this collocation. So likelihood is certainly not really an appropriate qualification. Since the de-rigeur quote is also from Götz, there is no chance to deny the factual "This is a Götz-quote, too." Furthermore I reported the quite reasonable background for this construction, so I really do not see a reason to revert this small addendum.
Whatever, I do know already about this Wikipedian spirit to talk about boldly editing and perform brutally reverting. I assure you, that I grew up in Austria, attended all schools and university there and still live there, so I know about the language as it is now spoken (and written), and therefore ask you politely to revert back your rush reversion. In any outcome I will not move one finger on this. Purgy (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia, unlike some others, is rather strict about the requirement for verifiability and reliable sources. Your edit at Götz von Berlichingen (Goethe) made several claims and provided not a single source, hence I called it "unsourced". Further, I called your assertions "unlikely" because I, too, am very familiar with the German language and its use, including the vast treasure of Goethe quotes, and I've never heard anyone who mentioned the Götz-Zitat referring to something else but the Swabian salute. "Wo viel Licht ist, ist starker Schatten" is indeed a well-known quote from Götz, too, but it's not, as you suggested, the Götz quote. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Die englische Wikipedia, im Gegensatz zu einigen anderen, hat recht strikte Anforderungen bzgl. Belegpflicht und zuverlässigen Informationsquellen. Deine Bearbeitung stellte eine Reihe von Behauptungen auf, bot aber nicht eine Quelle an; deshalb nannte ich es „unbelegt“. Weiterhin nannte ich deine Erklärung „unwahrscheinlich“ weil auch ich mit der deutschen Sprache vetraut bin, einschließlich des riesigen Schatzes von Goethe-Zitaten, und noch nie gehört habe, dass mit dem „Götz-Zitat“ etwas anderes als der „Schwäbische Gruß“ gemeint war. „Wo viel Licht ist, ist starker Schatten“ ist wohl auch ein bekanntes Zitat aus dem „Götz“, aber es ist nicht, wie du ausführtest, „das Götz-Zitat“. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I never claimed my edit to be sourced, but rather asked how to source a vernacular.
  • Oh, I see, you are the arbiter of likelihood, and single instantiation has measure zero, and you do not hesitate to call me a liar.
  • I never claimed the light-quote to be the Götz quote, but definitely stated its foisted interpretation as a Götz quote to hide an offense. You certainly will feel the gist of it, if I -considering your work in Wikipedia- write to you the Götz quote, note, not the Swabian salute. ;]
  • I do not consider it necessary that you supply a german translation, neither as proof of your fluidity, nor to cope with my inabilities. I'd just would wish you to avoid that familiar second person, singular adressing of myself, which I want to reserve for its classically appropriate use.
Happy bureaucracy. Purgy (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Flags in 1952 in music[edit]

In MOS:FLAGS it says: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Flags served a purpose in that sortable table. With them, you can sort the premiere dates by country. This highlights which countries were the most active regarding relevant contemporary music premieres, as well as listing its cities by number of premieres. Now you can sort the locations by city but not by country, while with the flags you could sort them by both.

Can we have them back? Pakhtakorienne (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The guideline you cite then goes on: "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags". The better approach, if sorting of "1952 in music#Classical music – Premieres" by the location country is really considered to be useful, is to use the countries' names. The article also suffers from WP:OVERLINK: London, Paris, New York City? Really? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that words over flags guideline is for cases like this. When you pass your mouse on West Germany "West Germany" flashes, so the concept is delivered both verbally and visually. Why make it flash like that if you're not supposed to use it instead of writing "West Germany"?
It we take that guideline rigurously I think you could only paste flagicons if the point is to show how that flag looks. Why do the sports clubs squads (for example) use them then? I don't remember anyone questioning that. And in this sortable table using flags has more functional relevance than in football squad tables (basketball squads do have sortable tables). Using flags in this table also keeps the cities aligned, which makes the information easier to grasp visually.
I don't mind unlinking the cities. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
MOS:FLAG provides a valid reason for using flags: "where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams", which is clearly not the case in those "yyyy in music#Classical music" sections. As for the discovery of a flag's meaning by hovering the mouse: please consider that a significant proportion of Wikipedia readers access it from devices that don't have a mouse, like mobile phones and tablets. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that seems to be a different matter, we're talking about lists and tables (next sentence), and it just talks about being pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. If flagicons are accepted in football clubs squads, where the players don't represent their country, I think not accepting them here, where they are both informative, pertinent to the topic (distribution of contemporary music premieres throughout the world) and useful for sortable purposes, is a double standard.
I know nothing about tablets and the like, but at the very least you should be able to click the flagicon to enter that country's article. Actually, I wonder if they made turned them into links because of that. Anyway, everyone knows these flags. Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1952 in music may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet more about the Years in music tables[edit]

I used the small tags to keep the table from breaking. Or is it just my computer?

I think fitting the information to the table makes it easier to read and grasp. And I thought keeping the tables aligned had precedence over font size. But if most users prefer having everything in the same size rather than having it aligned I won't use this tag anymore, I don't really mind since you can shrink the font via CRTL + mouse (actually I think it's better with everything shrunk one font size). Pakhtakorienne Pakhtakorienne (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)